Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Microservices have emerged to change software architecture into a style of loosely coupled facilities cooperating via a lightweight way. This architecture makes a more scalable and resilient artifact that is easier to evolve and deploy. However, how can we ensure that microservices are defect-free and satisfy expected behaviors? Like other software styles, microservices must be tested in various ways. Employing heterogeneous platforms in microservice development and microservices characteristics, such as scalability and resiliency demand different test approaches from other software applications. This paper produces a systematic literature review on articles published from 2011 on microservice testing. Of the 98 relevant studies found in the literature, 35 have been included in this survey. Primary studies have been summarized by their novelty, benefits, and gaps. Moreover, they are compared in terms of their techniques, outcomes, and evaluations. Studying the current test method’s limitations identifies open problems discussed during the paper. Results of this study identify the current achievements and future possible directions in the microservice testing domain. This survey finds resiliency testing and finding abnormal components in a production environment as the most common approaches for testing and validating microservice integrations and behavior. However, there is still room for generalizing fault injection methods and addressing microservice-specific features in test approaches.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".